Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

As for last night, I keep thinking about it and really don't feel like Biden did as bad as it seemed. It's difficult to deal with someone doing what Trump was doing without either go as low as Trump was going and turning it into a full on episode of Jerry Springer with thrown furniture included. Or simply walking away until everyone starts playing by the rules. Neither of those reactions would have been good for Biden, but while he did get dragged down by Trump a few times and took the bait to name calling, when Biden did get a chance to chain a couple of sentences together without interruption, it went well. Trump's responses were sometimes interestingly clear compared to the word soup we're used to hearing from Trump, but none of his responses were anything that would be swaying people. He didn't try to pivot to the center. He didn't pretend his base wasn't made up of extremists. Nothing he said changed anyone's opinion of what Trump is. If you liked him before last night, you'd like him after last night. And if you hated him, you'll still hate him. I don't think Biden did well... but Biden hasn't done well in debates, at least not in recent memory... and he still got to where he is, with the polling where it is. And at the end of the day, he's still running against Trump and is still likely going to be a preferable choice for the majority of people. Let's just hope that majority is distributed in a way that makes up 270 votes on the map.

[Starver]

Something like that, except Dwayne is a teddybear and just had a cuddling session with Joe and Kamala. Why not Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson, or Jerome Young aka New Jack with like "REPENT" written on the chest in runny red ink.

You're forgetting Arnie. Sure, he's avowedly anti-Trump, with his criss-crossed history in entertainment and politics, but he's firmly Republican and can do a good freak-out (Kindergarten Cop "It's not a tumor!!", True Lies "give me the missing page!", etc), which ought to please enough people.

[hector13]

A brief summary of how some other countries saw the debate.

[SalmonGod]

As for last night, I keep thinking about it and really don't feel like Biden did as bad as it seemed. It's difficult to deal with someone doing what Trump was doing without either go as low as Trump was going and turning it into a full on episode of Jerry Springer with thrown furniture included. Or simply walking away until everyone starts playing by the rules. Neither of those reactions would have been good for Biden, but while he did get dragged down by Trump a few times and took the bait to name calling, when Biden did get a chance to chain a couple of sentences together without interruption, it went well. Trump's responses were sometimes interestingly clear compared to the word soup we're used to hearing from Trump, but none of his responses were anything that would be swaying people. He didn't try to pivot to the center. He didn't pretend his base wasn't made up of extremists. Nothing he said changed anyone's opinion of what Trump is. If you liked him before last night, you'd like him after last night. And if you hated him, you'll still hate him. I don't think Biden did well... but Biden hasn't done well in debates, at least not in recent memory... and he still got to where he is, with the polling where it is. And at the end of the day, he's still running against Trump and is still likely going to be a preferable choice for the majority of people. Let's just hope that majority is distributed in a way that makes up 270 votes on the map.

I haven't watched the whole thing and probably won't bother.  But I watched something like 1/2 to 2/3 of it in random large chunks.  I think Biden got trounced.  It went exactly as I've been expecting this would since before Biden was nominated. 

I agree with MSH that the debates probably won't effect the votes of many people.  But the people open to being swayed are those who don't know the issues enough to recognize when Trump is lying.  Trump spoke many times more quickly, smoothly, and confidently than Biden.  That's how you project your words as having more sincerity and authority to know-nothings.  When you're soft, halting, stumbling, slow and cautious, many interpret this as you're either not confident in what you're saying or you're making up lies on the spot.  Especially in American culture, which is incredibly authoritarian.

I am myself really soft-spoken, careful with my words, and leave myself open to being wrong.  It's how I express sincerity and intellectual honesty, but it's gotten me in trouble when in leadership positions or when working with certain personalities.  Because most people do not interpret that manner of speaking as such.  You can't afford to speak this way on a national debate stage and hope to portray yourself as a leadership figure next to someone like Trump.

Biden face-vaulted hard compared to Trump when challenged on his record.  It happened to both of them.  But whenever it happened to Trump, he seemed prepared and confident.  For someone who knows the issues or who knows how to recognize narcissistic speech, they know that he bullshitted his way through it.  But for anyone else, he did so confidently and smoothly, and always quickly turned it into an attack on his opponent.  And not in a "I'm going to ignore the question and talk about something else" fashion that's common among politicians.  He'd say something self-promoting in his defense and then transition to how Biden/the left are worse on that issue.  He'd never end on the defensive.  It was all bullshit, but as I mentioned, that doesn't matter in terms of swaying those likely available to be swayed.

Biden, in comparison, never had anything to say when challenged on his record.  He'd dodge or stumble and always leave off his speaking time still feeling like he was on the defensive.

Yeah, Trump made an ass of himself, and it seems like so many are constantly expecting that to work against him somehow.  But everyone, even the most apolitical, is aware of Trump's personality at this point, I'm sure.  There is a disturbingly large portion of American culture which loves that type of personality.  Trump's made an ass of himself all day every day of his entire life.  If this were a deal-breaker to a significant number of people, he never would have become president in the first place.

And the worst comparison is that Trump actually knows how to appeal to his base.  Biden's appeal remains nothing more than being Not Trump, and he fails to represent anything other than a wishy washy general idea of returning to business as usual that's nicer and better in mostly ill-defined ways than the way things are under Trump.  Take the policing segment for example.  Trump hammers on exactly what his base wants to hear.  Biden runs with the "weed out the few bad apples" idea that few among his base believe anymore, says absolutely nothing about how he's going to make anything better besides "I'm going to get a bunch of people together and we'll work it out", and then condemns violent protesters, actively feeding right-wing propaganda on the subject.  Who does this appeal to right now?  I'm exposed to plenty of centrist lib talk.  They would have gone for this a year ago, but not now.  That's moderate republican ground these days, and we've already had plenty of talk on this forum about the political strategy of alienating the left to try and steal moderate republican votes.  It's not going to work.  Trump represents and appeals to his base, while Biden continued his grand strategy through this debate of representing and appealing to no one and nothing, relying solely on being Not Trump.

And it is possible to contend with personalities like Trump without sinking to their level.  It's not easy.  But there are certainly people who can do it.  The most effective, I think, is patient deadpan snark.  Let the guy blow his hot air.  Then pick a key point and punch a gaping hole through it with some sharp, concise words.  You don't have to respond to everything.  You don't have to speak half as much as he does.  You just have to poke holes, and the entire act will deflate on its own.  Trump's style of rhetoric is like a balloon.  Inflated, but hollow.  It attacks by smothering with its exaggerated size.  But if it meets something sharp, it pops, and flies away screaming.  Unfortunately, Biden was like a smaller, half-inflated balloon.

That is concerning news for the President, but I'm sure he will take strong actions in the next few weeks to shore up his support with that important demographic, SG.

Oh, I know.  It was just an observation relating to the Richard Spencer backing Joe Biden thing.  I'm guessing that's what it's about.

[sluissa]

You kind of mix demographics there. The people who are open to being swayed are largely the people who haven't been paying attention.

Trump never made a hit against Biden that didn't require extensive knowledge or further research. From a completely clueless perspective Trump's ramblings don't make any sense. He makes references to things that, with the knowledge, make some amount of sense. But it's like, if you just kept shouting "BUT HER EMAILS!" at someone who had no clue who Hillary Clinton was (Beyond maybe name recognition).

To the Qanons and the people who listen to Fox News all day and AM Talk radio, his words awkwardly reference things that people will recognize. Not really expand on them, or explain what he thinks, but they reference things people have feelings about.

Like when Trump was talking about Climate change and just kept going on about  "Look at what california is doing". If you're paying attention you've got something to be mad at California for, and it doesn't really matter what since Trump never explains. Just tosses vague references.

Now, Biden didn't really do much good either, definitely embarrassed himself at points, even when Trump wasn't goading him, but a couple of times he grabbed the camera and really talked and it felt good, it felt presidential. He's no Obama. He's not even a Bush. But he topped anything Trump has managed to drag out of his mouth in the last 4 years. It felt good, it felt refreshing. Even though it's nowhere near where I'd like it to be, it's the, warm, flat, watered down soda that's been sitting there all day and while normally you'd just pour it out, you're so thirsty, and your mouth tastes so terrible, and there's nothing else within reach that you'll take anything that reasonably seems like a drink and through desperation, even be thankful for it.

[da_nang]

A brief summary of how some other countries saw the debate.

Spoiler: This sums up my reaction upon waking up and finding out (click to show/hide)

A big burning pile of fertilizer.

[SalmonGod]

You kind of mix demographics there. The people who are open to being swayed are largely the people who haven't been paying attention.

Trump never made a hit against Biden that didn't require extensive knowledge or further research. From a completely clueless perspective Trump's ramblings don't make any sense. He makes references to things that, with the knowledge, make some amount of sense. But it's like, if you just kept shouting "BUT HER EMAILS!" at someone who had no clue who Hillary Clinton was (Beyond maybe name recognition).

To the Qanons and the people who listen to Fox News all day and AM Talk radio, his words awkwardly reference things that people will recognize. Not really expand on them, or explain what he thinks, but they reference things people have feelings about.

Like when Trump was talking about Climate change and just kept going on about  "Look at what california is doing". If you're paying attention you've got something to be mad at California for, and it doesn't really matter what since Trump never explains. Just tosses vague references.

I think you're overestimating how much things have to make sense to people.  These vague references and ideas that there's something problematic going on without actually knowing anything in detail about it is exactly how this stuff works.  It just has to align somehow with their anxieties and be spoken with the right attitude. 

Like the California thing you mention.  It wasn't unexplained.  There's fires in California.  Everyone's heard about them.  And if you're buried so deeply under a rock that you haven't, then he repeated it several times.  There's anxieties there.  Fire bad.  Dangerous.  Scary.  From there, he spins a narrative.  "Look at what California's doing".  It's intentionally left open.  The underlying anxiety fills that space with a negative anticipation.  Then he fulfills that anticipation with vague implications of things being mismanaged and people not understanding the real cause of the problem, and associates that with the opposite of the political spectrum.  Anxiety is eased by listening to someone speak confidently about understanding the problem and how to fix it, if only his political opponents would listen to him.  Anyone who actually fact checks this knows its bullshit.  But for the significant number of people who don't, it's an easy hook.

[WealthyRadish]

A key thing is that the void left by any public figure failing to give a real position an issue (and merely referencing it instead) is readily filled by an existing and always-ready mass of propaganda that litters every search engine and social network. If anyone hears Trump reference some random nonsense and gets curious enough to look it up, not only will they find (false) information confirming it, the platforms that aggregate that information will be specifically designed to cater to that user's specific biases and serve up page after page of it without even suggesting the existence of an alternative.

[Doomblade187]

Excellent Article on the proposed new supreme court justice: https://apnews.com/article/new-orleans-donald-trump-amy-coney-barrett-us-supreme-court-courts-1be61f7c3427e41326038e5cdab54839

[sluissa]

I think you're overestimating how much things have to make sense to people.  These vague references and ideas that there's something problematic going on without actually knowing anything in detail about it is exactly how this stuff works.  It just has to align somehow with their anxieties and be spoken with the right attitude. 

Like the California thing you mention.  It wasn't unexplained.  There's fires in California.  Everyone's heard about them.  And if you're buried so deeply under a rock that you haven't, then he repeated it several times.  There's anxieties there.  Fire bad.  Dangerous.  Scary.  From there, he spins a narrative.  "Look at what California's doing".  It's intentionally left open.  The underlying anxiety fills that space with a negative anticipation.  Then he fulfills that anticipation with vague implications of things being mismanaged and people not understanding the real cause of the problem, and associates that with the opposite of the political spectrum.  Anxiety is eased by listening to someone speak confidently about understanding the problem and how to fix it, if only his political opponents would listen to him.  Anyone who actually fact checks this knows its bullshit.  But for the significant number of people who don't, it's an easy hook.

You might be right, but I'm going to give people actually watching the debate the benefit of the doubt that if they're undecided, they're attempting to actually learn something from the candidates. Trying to figure things out. Trying to use the information to make a decision. And while I try to pay attention, and thus my viewing of it was biased from the outset, just attempting to view it through the lenses of someone who doesn't have the information I have, Trump didn't really make too many clear points.

That said, Trump did spout a lot of bullshit. And Biden didn't do a great job at countering any of it and completely failed to respond to some of it, just letting it sit there. If you came into this with implicit trust that both of them were going to be speaking something resembling truth. Yeah, Trump probably won there. So I'm not sure. I'm interested to see how the polls work out over the next few days. That's really the the only way we'll have any clue what sort of effect it's had overall.

I do talk about this hypothetical "Uninformed voter" like they're some substantial bloc as well, but I really doubt there are that many people out there so clueless that they don't have SOME knowledge of the candidates. So it may not really matter.

[Cthulhu]

I can't imagine there's any significant proportion of people both intending to vote and not already unassailable in their opinion.  This doesn't strike me as that kind of election.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Actually convinced a family member provisionally not to vote for Trump today. We'll see if it lasts past the next round of agitprop.

[sluissa]

I do personally know a few moderate conservatives who, while they tend to lean Trump, are sufficiently out of the loop of the propaganda cycle and disgusted by Trump, that they're trying to learn more about Biden. Lots of people really only know him as "Obama's VP".

I don't really have much hope they'll swing Biden when it comes down to it, but they're looking for information at least.

[SalmonGod]

I do talk about this hypothetical "Uninformed voter" like they're some substantial bloc as well, but I really doubt there are that many people out there so clueless that they don't have SOME knowledge of the candidates. So it may not really matter.

This really sunk in for me when I looked at the exit polls from this year's primary, which I had never done before.  It was pretty consistent that, with Bernie supporters as the sole exception, the majority of voters weren't deciding who to vote for or support until a few days before they voted, or even the day of the vote.  By my interpretation meaning they are not paying attention long-term, don't know much about the candidates, and are just putting some brief effort into making a shallow judgment just before voting, or even just going and checking a box based on name recognition alone.  It took me to a new level of jaded. 

I think the uninformed voter is actually a significant bloc.  Not that they don't have political opinions and leanings.  But they're not based on information.  They're based on feeling their way through things.  And voting behaviors are based on which candidate appeals to and/or manipulates their feelings about things, based on their prior exposures to vague bits and pieces of notions and ideas and how those intersect with their personal anxieties and identity.

Propaganda is a thing that works, after all, and it's rooted in how the majority engages with politics.  Or rather... doesn't.

Edit:

This isn't to do exclusively or even mainly with conservative voters, either.  Just look at the countless examples out there of Democrats admitting their support for a candidate in the primary was based on that candidate's gender or things like appearing "professorial".

[Dostoevsky]

I don't have hard numbers off-hand either, but from materials I've seen the uninformed voter block is not huge but larger than one might think. These are people are are too busy working multiple jobs / not starving / whatever to spend much time paying attention to the news at all. They get a steady drip of news-like blurbs from their facebook feed or other social media, but are not really informed.

That said, there's also a very sizable group of people who don't vote, and there may be quite a bit of overlap between those two groups.